Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Dahedd »

I'd forgotten about the Warthog tbh.
Ideally both platforms would be great & a batch for the RM Vikings as well

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SKB »


(Forces TV)
500 members of 2 YORKS have been preparing for their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. The Catterick-based battalion will take over the role of the Kabul Protection Unit which is responsible for providing force protection to all NATO allies and mentors currently working to support the Afghan government and their security forces. In Afghanistan they will be using the foxhound to taxi mentors between police stations, army bases and government buildings, and of course provide protection if required. Formerly a pure infantry battalion, 2 YORKS have now become a light mechanised force.

Antipod
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 27 Oct 2016, 10:43
Australia

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Antipod »

Hadn't realised Foxhoubd was powered by a wr21, no wonder they were pricey...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41431507?oci ... e=facebook

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Gabriele »

Is the army ever going to purchase anything without regretting it immediately after...? It is getting unbearable.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by RetroSicotte »

An un-named army "source" from a single guy at the NCO level after almost a decade of the things operating with no such claims.

From the BBC.

Hmmmmm...

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by downsizer »

Maybe someone in the Army could tell us their first hand experience. Oh, wait.....

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by indeid »

RetroSicotte wrote:An un-named army "source" from a single guy at the NCO level after almost a decade of the things operating with no such claims.

From the BBC.

Hmmmmm...
Considering the details provided by the BBC on the individual I doubt he will be un-named for long. Let the manhunt commence.

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Smokey »

downsizer wrote:Maybe someone in the Army could tell us their first hand experience. Oh, wait.....
@Happyslapper

Who was amongst the first to use Foxhound in Kabul.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SKB »

Lance Corporal Bruce gives a tour of the agile patrol vehicle packing cutting edge technology. Watch the Foxhound in the latest episode of British Army Cribs.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Pongoglo »

From the latest edition British Army Review;

"The Foxhound provides unprecedented levels of blast protection for its size and weight. It is an agile and versatile vehicle that will be a mainstay of the Army for years to come. Foxhound can protect against IED's due to its v-shaped hull"

ARMYHQ-2018-125-XTJ-071.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Jake1992 »

Pongoglo wrote:From the latest edition British Army Review;

"The Foxhound provides unprecedented levels of blast protection for its size and weight. It is an agile and versatile vehicle that will be a mainstay of the Army for years to come. Foxhound can protect against IED's due to its v-shaped hull"

ARMYHQ-2018-125-XTJ-071.jpg
It still really bugs me that the MOD are going with the JLTV instead of the foxhound family as an arching replacement for huskie Panther and others.

I understand the foxhound family would cost more in upfront purchase but the ongoing surply chain is already set up. This is where other departments such DIT should step in and bridge the gap in purchase cost to allow foxhound family to be chosen and built here.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote: bugs me that the MOD are going with the JLTV instead of the foxhound
Jake1992 wrote:other departments such DIT should step in
Sounds a bit steep: £ 0.3m vs. £ 0.9 per copy. Which one is better?
- the MoD is really shooting into their right or left foot: the Chair of the body that in the Parliament is supposed to oversee their spending had to ask "why are they spending £0.8 on a 'foreign' product" when that was based on what ever outside sources and rumours
- no "propper" reporting, to focus the scrutiny?

However, this strategy is not unknown in Corporates: give them, in tis case the "Auditors" BS to peruse and as the billing (not relevant in Parliamentary proceedings) is based on time spent ( which v much is the currency as to how much any Committee can spend, on any single topic)... and, in the end, they will go away ;)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Ron5 »

JLTV's will not be replacing Foxhounds until the Foxhounds go out of service due to age.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

The answer is given in the recent Select Committee meeting that was posted on here. When the MoD looks at purchasing a product, it cannot include many items that would benefit the country if an on shore product were selected. Its key drivers are value for money to the tax payer, does it meet the requirements and can it be delivered when it is needed. Unfortunately Foxhound fails the first and most important test that of value for money. As for the JLTV it appears a smear campaign has already been launched saying that the cost per vehicle is over twice what was originally thought. The MoD doesn't recognise this price increase stating it is still around the original price quoted. Foxhound is a great platform but so is the JLTV and the latter will serve the UK very well. What I now want to see is whether the MRV(P) 6x6 actually comes to fruition or becomes a victim of the MDP.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Jake1992 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: bugs me that the MOD are going with the JLTV instead of the foxhound
Jake1992 wrote:other departments such DIT should step in
Sounds a bit steep: £ 0.3m vs. £ 0.9 per copy. Which one is better?
- the MoD is really shooting into their right or left foot: the Chair of the body that in the Parliament is supposed to oversee their spending had to ask "why are they spending £0.8 on a 'foreign' product" when that was based on what ever outside sources and rumours
- no "propper" reporting, to focus the scrutiny?

However, this strategy is not unknown in Corporates: give them, in tis case the "Auditors" BS to peruse and as the billing (not relevant in Parliamentary proceedings) is based on time spent ( which v much is the currency as to how much any Committee can spend, on any single topic)... and, in the end, they will go away ;)
From what read JLTV is around £350,000 per unit and foxhound family is around £1m per unit so big difference yes, but I think we could bring this down to around £800,000 through a large order.

The way I see it should be done is that the treasurey should take in to account tax receipt and compensate the MOD this up front, so this would be 33% off from the start bringing the price down to around £540,000, this is where I believe the DIT should cover the extra £200,000 odd as this would be strategic industry to the UK, just what the DIT is meant to help and encourage.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

Things like tax receipts are exactly the type of thing the Mod is not allowed to take into consideration when awarding contracts. This is laid down in the rules they have to follow.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:Things like tax receipts are exactly the type of thing the Mod is not allowed to take into consideration when awarding contracts. This is laid down in the rules they have to follow.
Oh I understand that it is not allowed at the moment but this is where I believe a change is needed to help benifit the MOD as well as give strategic UK industries such as ship building light medium and heavy armour building as benifit

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

I totally agree, especially that other departments should chip in if a more expensive on shore platform is to the selected as against a cheaper off shore one. Problem is the Government doesn't see it that way and I cannot see other departments volunteering to do so. Subsidies also upset other nations which can come back to note you if you try to export to said countries later. I think this is why they try to keep things simple and just say no.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:I totally agree, especially that other departments should chip in
Like they did with Italy's carrier: I think it cost e 1.3 bn, but bcz the other Depts chipped in ("EU money" :D) the cost is quoted @ 1 bn... everyone looking at the "marvel" in amazement... as it is a beautiful and functional ship. How did it come so "cheap"?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Little J »

Some steps need to be taken, otherwise we'll never be able to compete with the Yanks (in any of our own competitions)...

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Jake1992 »

Some of the varients of the foxhound alredy developed in to prototypes.

Plus the possibility of a 6x6 variant.

To me it's perfect for what we need with an already set surply chain in place and a understanding of it used in operations.
This is were HMG should sit up and say you know what it's create jobs and rebuild a important industry let's help the MOD cover the needed funds.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

A good video by Army personnel regarding the Foxhound. Only spotted it recently but it has been around on You Tube since last summer. AS usual I hope this hasn't already been posted.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Good to have these vids by the folks doing the job... wasn't there some kind of initiative to support that (I guess the vids get screened as a bonus; for not 'leaking' any secrets)?

Regardless of the answer to the above, it becomes clear that Foxhound -despite the fact that the Patrol Version was never ordered- is a platoon level patrol (protected) vehicle:
- disperse the patrol, with good connectivity and sensors
- trade dismounts for more ammo and whatever it takes to stay... a bit longer than planned, plus space to accommodate any wounded

So, in the long run have these for one Coy of the ex- ,or for now, Light Role Bns and put the other companies into Boxers, or other protected, but perhaps less off-the-road worthy vehicles?
- what say the folks here?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by SD67 »

Foxhound to me has always sounded too complex TBH - a monoblock engine a non steel chassis and four wheel steering. Reports of overheating problems in Astan, it seems more like a niche product for paras / SF.
Totally not convinced by JLTV though, yet another purchase without a contest.

I

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Gabriele »

Was it truly without a contest...? It is... a complex case. MRV-P got where it is today after dragging its feet for years as OUVS. Between having operated Panther (so having a decent idea of how the Iveco Lince is), having run a competition for the requirement eventually fullfilled by Foxhound and having considered OUVS options, it is not like JLTV was chosen entirely out of the blue.

It's complex.
And frustrating. The Army needs to stop spending decades throwing money at dubious programs that then just end in nothing but a name change and yet more years of uncertainty. In all the years that have passed, it could have trialed every last vehicle in existence, had it wanted to.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Post Reply